(controversial) Renaming 'bzr' => 'bz'

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Reg. Charney wrote:
> I can not understand why we don't keep bzr and allow the user to define bz
> as an alias? It avoids myriads of problems while allowing for user
> customization.
> 
> Reg. Charney
> 

Well the point isn't to help the 10 people who think "hmm.. maybe an alias
would help" it is to help the 99% of people who use a tool as-is. And so we can
give them a tool which is slightly better without customization.

John
=:->

PS> Someone else pointed to the debian rules, but

a) My understanding is you can't have a *package* name that is <3 chars, but
you can have a *program* named that.

b) Mercurial is in debian, and uses 'hg', so there is at least one counter
example. (I'm not counting ci/co, and all the other RCS commands, since they
could be considered legacy)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGbd40JdeBCYSNAAMRAlKzAKCJMy0sYRMPePR3DoCO6E2rsz+8pgCgjuxu
r14kqqcl7N61KPq2kjypIxM=
=DAOY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----